KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was indebted to the respondent-Bank. The bank had taken out a shopkeepers insurance scheme for the hypothecated goods in the petitioner's-shop. Petitioner reported theft and claimed about Rs. 4. 80 lakhs before the insurance Company. Insurance Company disputed the claim. Bank moved the certificate Court under the Public Demand Recovery Act. After hearing the objection of the petitioner the Certificate Court held the petitioner to be liable to pay the bank Rs. 7 lakhs by his order dated 10-2-2000. As petitioner was pursuing the insurance claim which was to accrue to the Bank, the Certificate Court directed the petitioner to pay the difference of the two that is the certificate amount as assessed and the insurance claim. Bank did not object to this order dated 10-2-2000 which attained finality. Thereafter, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Petitioner then approached the District Consumer Forum where again his claim was not accepted and petitioner has now filed an appeal before the State Commission for Redressal of Consumer Dispute which is pending. As the Consumer Forum dismissed the claim of the petitioner as against the Insurance Company, the petitioner then moved the Certificate Court for permission to deposit the entire amount and the permission was granted by order dated 10-9-2007 of the Certificate Court. Bank filed a review application which was rejected and then have now gone in appeal before the collector of the district against the order of the Certificate Court dated 2-11-2007 being Appeal No. 2 of 2007.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, there is no appeal against the original order passed in the year 2000 determining the liability. That order has attained finality and binds both Bank and the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner is that ignoring the said order Bank cannot move under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "sarfaesi Act") for recovery of its dues. Once Bank had a statutory remedy and it availed it and let it attain finality, having thus taken the remedy to its conclusion its result cannot be discarded or ignored and proceedings afresh started under SARFAESI Act.

(3.) IN my view, the principles of estoppel by conduct shall apply. Bank is estopped from now ignoring the order they suffered and which attained finality with regard to dispute inter se that order binds both parties, it being an order competently passed by a competent Court in a competent jurisdiction.